BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?
Yea, but you assigned percentages to it. For all we know, 99% of their staff could have met the "normal" requirements. Who knows. Either way, it's not uncommon for a company to discuss hiring requirements, to point out reasons why their current standards aren't working or could be improved on. I've been in meetings like that. Sure, it would feel awkward if you couldn't meet the new requirements, but if you're already on staff.. so what? Rather than going on a witch hunt and trying to suggest you'd been assaulted in someway, a better approach would be to say "hey, but then even I wouldn't be hired even though I'm valuable to the company."
Like the AC said, you're assuming that people aren't qualified to be there. Beyond that, it's not the writer's fault if some people can't deal with this discussion. If people have proven themselves in the time they've been with Google then their jobs would be safe. He's not even suggesting that anyone be let go. Also, job requirements fluctuate over time. Can Google never raise the bar for hiring because some of the snowflakes already working there would feel slighted that they wouldn't be hired under the new criteria?
But he did no such thing. The people that sought out what he wrote so they could claim victim status after reading it are the ones that created the hostile environment. Any normal, sane, rational adult would have read the document and perhaps offered a reasoned rebuttal.
If you want to create an atmosphere of resentment and bitterness, that'd be a great way to do it. What you propose sounds great in theory but would not play out well.
But two people can have the same job title but have very different performance, and performance is not something that's easily measured and recorded. Simple solutions are part of the problem.
NH pays more because the Seabrook NPP couldn't build the second reactor because of the anti-nuclear effort and legislative hurdles. Now we're stuck buying energy from Québec.
Medicare and Medicaid already exist separate from the AHA.
A free marketplace could have been a solution if the feds addressed our ability to buy plans from other states. That would have been an interesting piece of legislation all on its own, without needing thousands of pages of "pass the law to find out what's in it." Conservatives could have supported that as being a legitimate use of federal powers since it's obviously across state lines. I guess that could have been some middle ground.
True, but if the EU were given a couple hundred years of open border movement it probably would start to look like the US of today. It would become a "melting pot" as well. I was thinking more in terms of travel between member states, less so of the cultural aspects. Canada might be a slightly better example with Québec versus the other provinces, and also somewhat with the maritimes.
As for "independent countries", are they really? The US is a collection of (supposedly) sovereign states. The members of the EU have given up some of their independence by joining the EU. One aspect being control of their borders. Truly independent countries do not surrender that right to others.
I don't think you understand my comment. A good portion of the population doesn't want the federal government involved with access to health care, at all. No federal subsidies, no bail-outs, no federal safety nets, no federal requirement of insurance by abusing the IRS to make an end-run around the Constitution for the "it's not a fine and it's not a tax but it's both." None of it. These are all issues for the states to sort out for themselves.
You either believe that the federal government should intrude so deeply into our lives that they control our access to health care, or you don't. There isn't much of a middle-ground. This isn't a power that is given to the federal government under the Constitution.
Great! If someone runs on a platform of murdering half the population of the world to combat global whatever, they absolutely should get a chance to win. This will be awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?
Not as big as the US. "Better" is relative. It's not really right to look at the US as a whole on these types of things, they can vary a lot by state.
Not everyone can handle freedom equally, but it's still better far better than Europe.
What you cited doesn't validate your complaint. Read my other replies.
The author didn't say all women at Google, you're adding that based on your own bias.
Yea, but you assigned percentages to it. For all we know, 99% of their staff could have met the "normal" requirements. Who knows. Either way, it's not uncommon for a company to discuss hiring requirements, to point out reasons why their current standards aren't working or could be improved on. I've been in meetings like that. Sure, it would feel awkward if you couldn't meet the new requirements, but if you're already on staff.. so what? Rather than going on a witch hunt and trying to suggest you'd been assaulted in someway, a better approach would be to say "hey, but then even I wouldn't be hired even though I'm valuable to the company."
Like the AC said, you're assuming that people aren't qualified to be there. Beyond that, it's not the writer's fault if some people can't deal with this discussion. If people have proven themselves in the time they've been with Google then their jobs would be safe. He's not even suggesting that anyone be let go. Also, job requirements fluctuate over time. Can Google never raise the bar for hiring because some of the snowflakes already working there would feel slighted that they wouldn't be hired under the new criteria?
But he did no such thing. The people that sought out what he wrote so they could claim victim status after reading it are the ones that created the hostile environment. Any normal, sane, rational adult would have read the document and perhaps offered a reasoned rebuttal.
Citation needed. You won't be able to provide it because it's not in the document he wrote.
If you want to create an atmosphere of resentment and bitterness, that'd be a great way to do it. What you propose sounds great in theory but would not play out well.
But two people can have the same job title but have very different performance, and performance is not something that's easily measured and recorded. Simple solutions are part of the problem.
NH pays more because the Seabrook NPP couldn't build the second reactor because of the anti-nuclear effort and legislative hurdles. Now we're stuck buying energy from Québec.
You'd prefer that your customers hit the problem?
Considering that the feds have failed to secure the border, having the states do it individually would be a remarkable improvement.
This is why you don't buy hardware from HP.
Improving and financing the border controls of outer countries sounds like giving up control.
Medicare and Medicaid already exist separate from the AHA.
A free marketplace could have been a solution if the feds addressed our ability to buy plans from other states. That would have been an interesting piece of legislation all on its own, without needing thousands of pages of "pass the law to find out what's in it." Conservatives could have supported that as being a legitimate use of federal powers since it's obviously across state lines. I guess that could have been some middle ground.
True, but if the EU were given a couple hundred years of open border movement it probably would start to look like the US of today. It would become a "melting pot" as well. I was thinking more in terms of travel between member states, less so of the cultural aspects. Canada might be a slightly better example with Québec versus the other provinces, and also somewhat with the maritimes.
As for "independent countries", are they really? The US is a collection of (supposedly) sovereign states. The members of the EU have given up some of their independence by joining the EU. One aspect being control of their borders. Truly independent countries do not surrender that right to others.
Think of requiring the same to go from state to state. EU.. US, same type of thing.
I don't think you understand my comment. A good portion of the population doesn't want the federal government involved with access to health care, at all. No federal subsidies, no bail-outs, no federal safety nets, no federal requirement of insurance by abusing the IRS to make an end-run around the Constitution for the "it's not a fine and it's not a tax but it's both." None of it. These are all issues for the states to sort out for themselves.
If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere, that's fine. But don't demand that the rest of us pay for your Internet.
You either believe that the federal government should intrude so deeply into our lives that they control our access to health care, or you don't. There isn't much of a middle-ground. This isn't a power that is given to the federal government under the Constitution.
Great! If someone runs on a platform of murdering half the population of the world to combat global whatever, they absolutely should get a chance to win. This will be awesome.
There were no attacks on elections in the west, at least not in the US. Find a new narrative.
Seems reasonable to me since the riot was an attempt to incite a revolt.